Remember all that fuss a while back about bakeries and gay weddings?

Well this is worse: https://health.good.is/articles/rul...d&tse_id=INF_ef448940d82311e6a03c354c456e1db2

"As several outlets have pointed out, this decision expands the precedent set by the Supreme Court’s Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision, which allows businesses to enforce religious beliefs on employees by denying health care coverage for birth control."

Thoughts on this? As a non-religious person, I think the entire thing is ludicrous, but as a Canadian, I just can't help feeling sorry for America atm. Forget Syrian refugees, if any Americans want to feel to Canada for protection, I'll welcome them with open arms.

 

I think we're less likely to see a doctor denying service than a baker, even if it's allowed by law. It's pretty barbaric that this exemption exists, but it's unlikely to be an issue.

The health coverage thing is nasty though, and seems far more likely to actually happen.

 

Remember how the Constitution separates church and state?

Only in the greatest country on earth.

 

or a candlestick maker.

 

Nothing to see here, move along.

 

you are, I will explain;

Rub a dub dub,
Three fools in a tub,
And who do you think they be?
The doctor, the baker,
The candlestick maker.
HEALTHCARE SHOULD BE FREE!

wait let me refine it.

Rub a dub dub,
Three fools in a pub,
And who do you think they be?
The doctor, the baker,
The lawmaker.
People should be free.

mmmm

Rub a dub dub,
Three fools in a pub,
And who do you think they are?
The doctor, the baker,
The stupid lawmaker.
everyone should have healthcare.

Rub a dub dub,
Three servile fools in a pub,
And who do you think they be?
The doctor, the baker,
The stupid lawmaker.
their services should be ideology free!

 

You're welcome.

 

I was taking that from the article link posted, which has "Doctors can now deny treatment to women who've had abortions" as it's title, and later says "By blocking this regulation through the lens of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Judge O’Connor has allowed health care professionals and insurance companies nationwide to discriminate as they see fit."

Its still possible that the article is misinterpreting something, but a quick look at the legal document finds the Christian Medical & Dental Society and the Specialty Physicians of Illinois on the list of plaintiffs.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3249186/Injunction-Franciscan-Alliance-v-Burwell.pdf

 

Remember, freedom of religion means freedom to discriminate based on your religion.

You'd think that it meant freedom to practice your religion as long as you don't harm anyone else, but you'd be wrong.

 

I would just be happy with freedom from religion.

 

For some reason the actual verdict hadn't been loading for me until recently, I thought it was just about upholding the insurance thing (and the article over-reacting with it's commentary), but you're right that it seems to be expanding it to HC providers as well. My mistake. Carry on.

To play devils advocate a bit:

While probably not true of a lot of people, there is an argument that it is about perspective. For example, if a Church believes that a marriage will be harmful to the individuals involved, should they be required to perform services, this is regardless of the sex (or identity) of those involved.

Likewise, if a doctor believes that a procedure or prescription would be harmful to the patient, should they be required to perform that procedure or write that prescription?

I know you think all religious stuff is nonsense poppycock and all that, but for some (and unfortunately only some) I'm sure that's their primary concern.


*shrug*

Like I said, I don't agree with the ruling myself. It's also a rather imprecise thing from both sides. Essentially it's focused on ACA being federal statute (and thus still subject, according to the Supreme Court, to the Religious Freedom act). This makes it so rules and regulations based on ACA supposedly can't apply in contrast to Religious beliefs (while State ones could)

The preamble of the verdict is all about discussing additional rules and regulations (not law) added onto ACA to expand the definition of what "discrimination by sex" is. It also primarily focuses on specific types of procedures and the homogenous application of a procedure on both females and trans females.

Essentially it's looking at poorly worded or imprecise things and then using that to smash the whole thing, from the looks of it. The verdict seems to be having some host issues, and I still haven't been able to read all of it yet.

It's kind of like a recent law in CA (think it passed, haven't checked), that makes it so that a minor that is soliciting can't be arrested/brought in by police outside of limited circumstances. While intended to protect minors, some have argued that it's too broad in its scope and essentially legalizes such solicitation within that age bracket (which could have a very negative impact, obviously). Because it's imprecise, it has broader implications than it perhaps should.

But I'd need more detail to really make that determination in the CA case, it's just stuff I've heard on that front so far.

 

wrong thread.

 

Well, this thread is still about religion in it's own way, hah.

 

And as bad as it is, no one flees anywhere because it's still way ****** better here. We can pretend it's not, but ask Sok when he's moving back.

 

haha that is cute, you think people being patriotic or not having the funds or being tied down by relations means you have it best.

I like that.

 

you guys should move here, it's pretty good.
or don't, it's a free country... well... this is anyway.

 

actually, im moving over there for work in a week

 

and here we have it! Belgian immigrants are taking OUR JOBS!